Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 13 Feb '10 10:12
    note item 9

    (an article from 2000 but is at spot 9 today.)

    Most Popular in Environment

    1 Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist

    2 Europe's Baltic Sea: a vulnerable ecosystem

    3 Cyclo-therapy: 'Those with winter tyres or a reckless streak sprinted across the ice, leaving the rest of us to slip and slide'

    4 Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?

    5 Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers

    6 University pledges independent review of climate research

    7 The world's rubbish dump: a tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan

    8 Flock of geese missing en route to feeding ground

    9 Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

    10 Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming
  2. 13 Feb '10 10:31
    and before you glom onto item 1:

    Climate quote is old stuff

    You make rather a meal out of Sir John Houghton's disputed eight-word quote on climate change, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" (report, 10 February), which I used in my 2009 book, Cool Thinking on Climate Change. But Sir John himself has questions to answer. This quote has been in the public domain, and widely cited, for many years. Why has he only now come out of the woodwork to deny it?

    In any case, there are many similar well-authenticated quotes from climate alarmists. In my book, I also quote Stephen Schneider: "We need to capture the public imagination ... so we need to offer up scary scenarios, and make little mention of any doubts we may have."

    Roger Helmer MEP (C, East Midlands)

    Market Harborough, Leicestershire
  3. Standard member StarValleyWy
    13 Feb '10 10:33
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    and before you glom onto item 1:

    Climate quote is old stuff

    You make rather a meal out of Sir John Houghton's disputed eight-word quote on climate change, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" (report, 10 February), which I used in my 20 ...[text shortened]... s we may have."

    Roger Helmer MEP (C, East Midlands)

    Market Harborough, Leicestershire
    Yea. Climate is just a word that leftist toids can barely spell.

    The game is the economy and the destruction of capitalism.
  4. 13 Feb '10 10:37

    Climategate scientist 'hid flaws in data', say sceptics

    Professor in leaked email scandal tried to hide fact that numbers he used were wrong

    By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

    Tuesday, 2 February 2010


    Climate sceptics have suggested that some of the higher readings may be due not to a warmer atmosphere, but to the so-called "urban heat island effect", where cities become reservoirs of heat and are warmer than the surrounding countryside, especially during the night hours.

    Professor Jones and a colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany suggested in an influential 1990 paper in the journal Nature that the urban heat island effect was minimal – and cited as supporting evidence a long series of temperature measurements from Chinese weather stations
    , half in the countryside and half in cities, supplied by Professor Wei-Chyung. The Nature paper was used as evidence in the most recent report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    However, it has been reported that when climate sceptics asked for the precise locations of the 84 stations, Professor Jones at first declined to release the details. And when eventually he did release them, it was found that for the ones supposed to be in the countryside, there was no location given.

    Climate sceptics have demanded the two professors now withdraw their heat island paper. Professor Wei-Chyung was investigated by his university, but exonerated, but the emails indicate there was also concern among Professor Jones' s colleagues at UEA, including from Dr Tom Wigley, his predecessor as head of the CRU, about the Chinese weather station data and Professor Jones's contuing reliance on it.

    No-one was available for comment at the University of East Anglia last night.
  5. 13 Feb '10 10:46
    and for item 5:

    Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money

    By James Delingpole
    Politics Last updated: February 10th, 2010


    Now the only reasons I’m rising to Jo’s bait are a) because I know it will give you all so much pleasure and b) because of what it says about the delusions of the Warmist lobby. They really do seem to imagine, bless, that the only reason anyone could possibly have for being sceptical about AGW is if they were being bribed by sinister business concerns (Big Oil, etc) or had some similar vested interests.

    The Independent On Sunday had another feeble attempt at resurrecting this myth at the weekend. But the sad truth (sad, that is, for those of us who really wouldn’t mind being funded by Exxon and wouldn’t feel compromised one bit) is that all the big money has long since migrated to the other side. For Warmists, there are fortunes to be made in lavish grant funding, carbon trading, government subsidised green non-jobs, and so on. For us sceptics there’s little more than the satisfaction of having right and truth on our side.

    As Richard North points out, the amount Exxon spent over 10 years funding sceptics is as nothing to the quantities of public money which has been splurged on funding climate change alarmism:

    Over ten years, the company paid a grand total of $23 million to sceptics (by no means the larger part of which was devoted to climate change) less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

    Against that, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government had poured in $32 billion for climate research. In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher.

    That, of course, is only the US picture – and government funding. To that, one must add the hundreds of millions, if not billions, poured in by the charitable foundations, and the massive funding from industry – much of which ends up in the pockets of advocacy groups such as the WWF.

    Then, albeit on a smaller scale, we have other nations around the world adding to the funds. In the UK we have seen that the Met Office has been given £243 million of taxpayers’ money on “climate research”, and that represents just the tip of the iceberg.

    Today, the good Dr North has yet another shocking story about taxpayers’ money being squandered on global warming drivel. Turns out that man in charge of discredited Working Group II section (yep: the one which responsible for Glaciergate, Amazongate and Africagate) of the risibly flawed Fourth IPCC assessment report was paid over one third of a million quid for supervising this piece of tosh. His name is Professor Martin Parry.

  6. 13 Feb '10 10:51

    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert

    By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: February 9th, 2010

    263 Comments Comment on this article

    Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. His post’s so delightful there’s no need for embellishment. Here it is in full: (Hat tip: R. Campbell/P.Keane)

    While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.

    Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.

    Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

    There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

    I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):

    Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

    Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?